People vs SB - Digest

Facts:
Respondents Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., Julian Alzaga, Manuel Satuito, Elizabeth Liang and Jesus Garcia were all
charged with Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
Case No. 25741. The Information alleged that respondents misappropriated and converted for their personal
use the amount of P250,318,200.00 from the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and
Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS).[1]

On November 12, 1999, respondent Ramiscal filed with the Sandiganbayan an "Urgent Motion to Declare
Nullity of Information and to Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest."[2] He argued, inter alia, that the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case because the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. The said Urgent
Motion was later adopted by respondents Alzaga and Satuito.

The Urgent Motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution promulgated on January 6, 2000.
[3] Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In a Resolution issued on May 12, 2000, the
Sandiganbayan sustained respondents' contention that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. Hence, it
reconsidered its earlier Resolution and ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 25741.

Issue:

whether or not the RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE RESOLUTION DATED MAY 9, 2000
INSOFAR AS IT DISMISSED THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

Ruling:

Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for
review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Basic is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules may be availed of only
where there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari
cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.

The foregoing rule, however, may be relaxed where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest
is involved, and in case of urgency. In such cases, certiorari is allowed notwithstanding the existence and
availability of the remedy of appeal. Certiorari may also be availed of where an appeal would be slow,
inadequate and insufficient. If the strict application of the Rules will tend to frustrate rather than promote
justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.